2024A-03520-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing & Packet MAILED 2024-03520.pdf

2024A-03520-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-09-11

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Bradford White Fiske , Case No. 2024-03520

COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2024A-03520-CHC-ROC

v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONTESTED CASE Kevin B Howard Architects Inc. An Arizona Corporation License No. ROC 283314 and 339408 RESPONDENT. This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D).

HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for:

October 30, 2024 1:00 PM Samuel Fox Google Meet. A link will be provided directly from The Office of Administrative Hearings. Go to www.azoah.com to request to appear in-person.

If you have requested to appear in-person at the hearing, the hearing will be held at 1740 W Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative law judge, and is conducted in a similar manner as judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be

prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION

The State of Arizona has determined that the licensing and regulation of construction contractors is a proper state function, and has vested authority in the Registrar of Contractors to administer Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A.R.S. §§ 32-1101 et seq. All hearings for alleged violations of Title 32, Chapter 10 are conducted under Title 41,

Chapter 6, Article 10. A.R.S. § 32-1156.

The statutes and rules governing the hearing can be found at: Arizona Revised

Statutes §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12, and Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-101 to -122.

PARTICULAR ARIZONA STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED

The statutes and rules the Respondent is alleged to have violated are cited in the

complaint and citation, which were served on the Respondent on August 13, 2024. SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED

The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(a) Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(b)

Charge: 3 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22)

THE PARTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will

be a party to the hearing.

Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and

argument to the administrative law judge.

The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing. RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED The parties to the administrative hearing may choose to be represented by an attorney.

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(B). If one of the parties is a company, the company may be represented

by an officer or employee if that person satisfies the conditions set forth in A.R.S. § 32-

1156(B).

CHANGE OF ADDRESS Each party must inform the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings of any change of address within five (5) days of the change. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

HEARING PROCEDURES AND RULES The administrative hearing will be conducted in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 41-1092

to -1092.12, and A.A.C. R2-19-101 to -122. The parties should review the statutes, rules, and processes governing the administrative hearing. Copies of the statutes, rules, and articles regarding the administrative hearing process can be found at https://www.azoah.com/.

REGISTRAR’S APPEARANCE BY VIDEO CONFERENCE OR TELEPHONE

The Registrar’s investigators, employees, and attorneys will appear at the hearing via video conference or telephone unless requested by a party to appear in-person. Requests for the Registrar’s investigators, employees, or attorneys to appear in-person must be filed with the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing date.

HEARING PACKET

In the interests of administrative efficiency, the Registrar compiles and discloses

certain documents to the parties and the Office of Administrative Hearings. These documents are attached to this Notice of Hearing as the “Hearing Packet.” If any party wishes to submit additional evidence, they must do so during the hearing after completing a disclosure statement. See “Disclosure Statement” section below.

SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS OR DOCUMENTS

The parties to the hearing must be prepared to present evidence in support of their

case. If a party wants to obtain testimony from a witness or documents not in the party’s

possession, the party must prepare and file a written subpoena for the Administrative Law Judge to review and sign, if approved. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(C). Forms for requesting a

subpoena can be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ website at www.azoah.com. The party seeking a subpoena must serve notice on all the parties to the hearing, and on the Registrar. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

At least seven calendar days before the hearing, each party must prepare and serve a disclosure statement on all other parties, and file it with the Office of Administrative Hearings. A.A.C. R4-9-118; A.A.C. R2-19-108. The disclosure statement must include any exhibit the party will use at the hearing. A party’s failure to timely disclose any witness or exhibit, without good cause, may result in the administrative law judge excluding those witnesses or exhibits from being used at the hearing. A.A.C. R4-9-118(C). A sample disclosure form is available on the Registrar’s website at https://roc.az.gov/forms/RC-L-800A%20- %20Prehearing%20Disclosure%20Statement%2020191007v4.pdf

CHANGING THE HEARING DATE

The date of the hearing may only be advanced or delayed on the agreement of the

parties or on a showing of good cause. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(C). The date of the hearing may

be changed by filing a written agreement of the parties to change the date of the hearing. The written agreement must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmitted to the Registrar and all other parties. The assigned Administrative Law Judge may be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ web portal at www.azoah.com

If a party would like to move the date of the hearing without agreement of all parties, the party must file a written motion with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmit a copy to the Registrar and all other parties. The motion must state in detail good cause for why the date of the hearing should be advanced or delayed, and the position of all other parties regarding the advancement or delay. A party may also file a motion asserting a right to an expedited hearing upon a showing of

extraordinary circumstances or the possibility of irreparable harm. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(E).

RESOLUTION SHORT OF ADJUDICATION In any case which is resolved or settled by the parties, or which is withdrawn by the Complainant without objection from Respondent after the Notice of Hearing is issued, the parties must notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the resolution or settlement. Any such cases will be listed on the Registrar’s website and its records under the category: “Closed

Complaints – Resolved/Settled/Withdrawn.”

Dated September 11, 2024.

By: /s/ Erika Hoskin Erika Hoskin Legal Secretary Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors

Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail September 11, 2024 to:

Respondent(s) Kevin B Howard Architects Inc. An Arizona Corporation 8339 N Oracle Rd Ste. 110 Tucson, AZ 85704

Respondent's Attorney Michael S Woodlock, Esq. 1 S Church Ave Ste. 1900 Tucson, AZ 85701 Complainant(s) Bradford White Fiske 14555 N Blazing Canyon Dr. 85755, AZ 19106 Complainant's Attorney Justin D. Castillo, Esq. 4574 N 1st Ave Ste. 150 Tucson, AZ 85718 Copy sent electronically this same date to: Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Respondent’s Attorney at email address of record with Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant’s Attorney at email address of record with Registrar

Case No. 2024-03520 /

Hearing Packet FAQ What is the The Hearing Packet is a packet of certain documents collected or Hearing Packet? issued by the Registrar over the course of its investigation. Who gets the The Hearing Packet is assembled and distributed to all parties and Hearing Packet? to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) prior to an administrative hearing. What types of The Registrar prepares a Hearing Packet for Complainant-Handled cases does the Cases and No-Pay Cases. Note: If the Docket Number on the Registrar prepare a Notice of Hearing contains a “CHC” or “NPC”, your case is a Hearing Packet for? Complainant-Handled Case or a No-Pay Case. What is in the The Hearing Packet contains essential case-specific documents and Hearing Packet? at a minimum will include the following documents: ● Original complaint; ● Citation; and ● Answer. The Hearing Packet will also contain the following documents (if applicable): ● Jobsite inspection notices, notes, and photos; ● Written directives; and ● Compliance inspection notices, notes, and photos. What if there are If there is any evidence you submitted to the Registrar that are not documents missing included in the Hearing Packet it is your responsibility to introduce from the Hearing that evidence at the administrative hearing. Note: The Packet? administrative law judge assigned to your case does not have access to the entire Registrar record.

If there is additional evidence you submitted to the Registrar during the investigation that you also want to introduce as evidence during your hearing, it is your responsibility to: ● Properly disclose that evidence to the other party; and ● Introduce the evidence during your hearing.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

How do I disclose You must properly disclose any and all documents and witnesses evidence I intend to you intend to use at your hearing according to the Registrar’s use at a Hearing? Prehearing Disclosure Rules. See Arizona Administrative Code Section R4-9-118. A sample prehearing disclosure form and instructions are provided to the parties by the Registrar. How do I obtain If you previously submitted documents to the Registrar and need a documents I copy of these documents, please contact the Registrar’s Legal previously submitted Department or submit a public records request at to the Registrar? https://roc.force.com/AZRoc/s/roc-public-request.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Complainant: Bradford White Fiske 14555 N Blazing Canyon Dr 85755, AZ 19106

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 Respondent: Kevin B Howard Architects Inc An Arizona Corporation 8339 N Oracle Rd Ste 110 Tucson, AZ 85704

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 April 12, 2024

Re: Complaint No. 2024-03520

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for Friday, May 17, 2024 at 09:30 AM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

COMPLAINANT: 1. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(1), the Respondent must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice. If Respondent is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within the fifteen (15) day time period, the Registrar may be prohibited from taking further action on this complaint. 2. The Registrar may also be precluded from taking further action on this complaint, if the work that is the subject of the complaint is subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2) 3. You must provide safe access to any area to be inspected. If access to a roof or other elevated area is required, you must provide a means to safely access the area (ladder or manlift as appropriate). Additionally, please secure any animals.

RESPONDENT: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the complaint. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) you must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen days of the date of receipt of this notice. 2. To assist the assigned investigator in evaluating the merits of the complaint, please submit a response to the enclosed complaint to the assigned investigator prior to the scheduled inspection. 3. If you do not attend the jobsite inspection, your absence may negatively impact the investigation, and your interests. 4. If a building permit(s) was required for this project, please have the building permit information available at the jobsite inspection. If either party needs to reschedule the jobsite inspection, please notify the assigned investigator at least three business days prior to the inspection date to schedule a new date and time. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

John Smith, Investigator #194 (520) 483-0027 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St,Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license alleging poor workmanship, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

Jobsite Inspection Rights and Responsibilities Access to inspect: The property owner has complete control over who they allow on the property. However, if the Registrar’s investigator or the contractor cannot inspect the work, the Registrar will not move forward with a citation.

Cooperation: Arizona law enables injured parties to seek relief for damages through several paths. When dealing with a licensed contractor, the Registrar of Contractors’ administrative complaint process may serve as one of those possible paths. However, in order to use that path, the Registrar relies on the cooperation of all parties to a complaint.

Minimum workmanship: The Registrar investigates workmanship complaints for compliance with minimum workmanship and professional industry standards. The Registrar does not issue citations for work that meets these standards.

Scope: The scope of the Jobsite Inspection is limited to items listed in the complaint filed with the Registrar’s office. It is the complainant’s responsibility to point out the complaint item(s) and the Investigators role to review the item(s). If the complainant identifies additional workmanship items not listed in the original complaint, they must file an addendum to the complaint. The Registrar’s Investigator may identify additional administrative violations by the contractor (e.g. work performed out of scope of the license and failure to provide a contract that meets requirements set by Arizona law) at the time of the inspection.

The Role of the Investigator At the Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s investigator will: ● Only investigate the items listed on the complaint form filed with the Registrar. ● Will gather evidence to make an informed decision about the complaint items.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will leave the jobsite and review the evidence provided during the inspection. Generally, the investigator does not make any determination at the time of the jobsite inspection regarding whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Questions? If you have already filed a complaint and it was assigned to an investigator, you are encouraged to contact that investigator directly with the information listed in your jobsite inspection letter. If you have not filed a complaint yet or have not been assigned an investigator, you can reach the Registrar’s compliance department at (877) 692-9762.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 A Guide to Written Directives Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will determine whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Written Directives Access: In order to use the administrative process offered by the Registrar, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a Written Directive. Complainants may not put any additional, unnecessary restrictions on the Respondent above and beyond the initial contract requirements agreed upon at the beginning of the project. Respondents are required to make repairs on items identified on any Written Directive, not otherwise restricted by local code or HOA limitations. Complainants must make access available to the Respondent to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint.

Contractor obligations: The Written Directive will set a deadline for compliance. This is the period of time determined by the Investigator as necessary to complete the items listed in the Directive. ● The deadline for compliance assumes the contractor will promptly begin working on the items listed in the Directive. ● Do not wait. Both parties should communicate quickly to schedule the work.

Extensions: If good cause exists to extend this deadline, either party may submit a written request to the Investigator. The Registrar will review requests for extension and determine if the Directive should be extended.

Manner and method of performance: The Registrar does not provide specific instructions for how to correct poor work. A licensed contractor is expected to have the skill and professionalism to

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 complete the work. Moreover, the complainant may not dictate the manner of repair. If the contractor fails to appropriately correct the work according to the contract, the Registrar will issue a citation.

Compliance Inspection: After the Written Directive expires, the Registrar’s Investigator will contact the complainant to determine if the contractor performed any corrective work. ● If the contractor did corrective work, the Investigator may schedule a Compliance Inspection to determine if the poor work is corrected. ● If the contractor did not perform any corrective work, the Registrar’s Investigator will not do a Compliance Inspection and will determine whether to issue a citation based on the administrative record.

Work performed after the directive ends: After the Directive period ends, a property owner may choose to allow the contractor to continue its work. The Registrar encourages parties to work cooperatively, but cannot require a homeowner to continue to allow a contractor access to the property after the Directive period ends in order for the administrative process to continue. Denying access after the Directive ends is not grounds to close or dismiss a complaint.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 Received by Investigations 4/29/24, 6:44 AM State of Arizona Mail - 2024-03520 04/29/2024 From the Complainant

John Smith <[email redacted]>

2024-03520 Bradford Fiske <[email redacted]> Thu, Apr 25, 2024 at 1:14 PM To: John Smith <[email redacted]>, Jodi Bellah <[email redacted]>

Mr. Smith,

I again cannot understand how to add complaint items online, so have attached a PDF. If I need to do more, please advise.

Thank you, Brad Fiske

From: John Smith <[email redacted]> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2024 4:18 PM To: Bradford White Fiske <[email redacted]>; Jodi Bellah <[email redacted]> Subject: 2024-03520

[Quoted text hidden]

Second List.pdf 304K

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=78b31fbe7e&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/1 Received by Investigations 04/29/2024 From the Complainant

Licensed Complaint Form For Current or Suspended Licensees Instructions & Checklist

Instructions • Complete the entire complaint form. Incomplete or unsigned forms may be returned to you, which will delay the complaint process. • Attach copies of documents and information as listed in the checklist below with your complaint form. Include copies of permits, invoices, advertisements, business cards and receipts. Do not send originals as they will not be returned to you. • Do not attach the following information or documentation with your complaint:  Photos (this includes photos stored on a disk or flash drive)  Sets of plans, specifications, drawings, sketches, etc.  Samples (such as flooring, brick, paint, roofing, landscape rock, etc.) • Investigators will take their own photos, review your plans and/or specifications, drawings, sketches, and visually inspect any samples as necessary at the time of the jobsite inspection. Please be sure to have this information and documentation ready for review by the Investigator at that time. The Investigator assigned to your complaint may request to review project information prior to the inspection if necessary.

Checklist 1) Contract a) For written contracts, provide a copy of the original construction contract signed (by both parties) including all addenda and change orders. If the only written documents describing the contract are a proposal, bid, or invoice, please follow the instructions in b) for “if no written contract.” b) If no written contract, provide a written statement describing the agreement that includes the following information: i) The reason a written contract is not being provided (e.g. the contractor did not provide a written contract, the contract is lost, the contract was destroyed); ii) A description of any written documents used to describe the contract, e.g. bids, proposals, invoices, receipts. (If you have copies of any of these documents, please provide them with the Complaint Form.); iii) A description of the work to be performed under the contract (including any addenda or change orders); iv) The names of the people who negotiated the contract; v) The agreed upon payment schedule; vi) An explanation of who was to receive payment; and vii) The date the work was to be completed.

2) Proof of Payment(s); Acceptable forms of proof of payment are copies of: a) Front and back of cancelled checks. Redact account numbers. b) Credit card statements. Redact account numbers. c) Executed lien releases/waivers. d) Bank/Lender documents showing payments/draws actually received by the contractor. Redact account numbers.

RCC099 12/05/18 Received by Investigations 04/29/2024 From the Complainant

Licensed Complaint Form Departmental Use Only For Current or Suspended Licensees Complaint Number: Mail to: Registrar of Contractors ______________________ P.O. Box 18243 Phoenix, AZ 85005-8243

Person Filing Complaint Full Name (First Middle Last) Business Name (if a licensed contractor or supplier) ROC License Number(s) (if any)

Mailing Address (Enter jobsite in Contract/Project section) City State Zip

Phone Number Email

I consent to receive communications electronically in connection with this case Yes No Name of Attorney (if any)

Street Address of Attorney City State Zip

Phone Number of Attorney Email of Attorney

Contractor Information Name (as shown on contract/invoice) ROC License Number(s)

Street Address City State Zip

Phone Number Email

Name of Person(s) Representing License

Contract/Project Information Contract Date Contract Amount Amount Paid

Date Work Started Date Work Stopped Date Work Was Completed

Close of Escrow (New Home) Move-In Date (New-Home)

Jobsite Street Address City State Zip

Name of Construction Site Owner Construction Site Name (if applicable)

Phone Number of Construction Site Owner Email of Construction Site Owner

This complaint is for Abandonment Poor Work Other _______________________ I have contacted the contractor by Phone Email Letter N/A Have you filed a complaint in court? Yes No N/A If yes, provide a copy of civil complaint Has any work been corrected? Yes No If yes, by whom? ______________________ The contract was Written Oral Both All change orders were Written Oral Both N/A This project was Commercial Residential On Tribal Land This project involved New Home Remodel Repair Other ____________________ A building permit was obtained by Contractor Property Owner Building permit # ________________

RCC099 12/05/18 Received by Investigations 04/29/2024 From the Complainant

Licensed Complaint Form For Current or Suspended Licensees

Contract/Project Information Continued List and briefly describe each complaint item (Please do not write "see attached" or use additional pages unless necessary to further describe issues or list more complaint items) (limited to 100 characters per line)

1.Interior stair was not rebuilt in accordance with sign-off drawings. 2.Twelve exterior glass pavers are improperly installed, lack ability to expand, lack sealant,rust 3.Roofing: ponding, buckling, drainage pipes adhered to roof preventing drainage, missing sealant 4.Additional areas of soffit with water damage or stains 5.Holes in weatherstripping at front door 6.Juncture of roof and window above entrance poor constructed, potential leaks 7.Non code compliant exterior stairs at both 3-step plinths 8.Exterior wall tiles missing grout, or leaching grout or adhesive 9.Electrical: unsafe screws, panel breaker mismatch, conductors not terminated 10.Plumbing: tpr pipe in studio improper termination, missing overflow pans and piping at water heaters 11.HVAC: Unit by studio is not not installed level 12. Exterior stair base non-compliant on east side 13. Cracks in roof parapets 14. Bare wood under casita base 15. No chimney caps 16. Poor overall (and overflow) drainage. Rainwater drained onto horizontal stucco surfaces 17. Exterior above SGD in BR2 - gaps, poor workmanship 18. Exterior fascias at balconies and some roofs: Poor workmanship, failing paint, rust 19. 20. Signature I declare under penalty of perjury that the information and documents contained on this Complaint Form, included with this complaint, or hereafter submitted in support of this complaint are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I will assist in the investigation or in the prosecution of the contractor or other parties, and will, if necessary, attend hearings and testify to facts. Printed Name Signature Date Bradford White Fiske 04/25/2024

RCC099 12/05/18

Complainant: Bradford White Fiske 14555 N Blazing Canyon Dr 85755, AZ 19106

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 May 6, 2024

Re: Complaint No. 2024-03520

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

Sincerely,

John Smith, Investigator #194 (520) 483-0027 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St,Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-2812

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

Manner and method of performance: The Registrar does not provide specific instructions for how to correct poor work. A licensed contractor is expected to have the skill and professionalism to

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 12/23 5/14/24, 8:49 AM State of Arizona Mail - Complaint No. 2024-03520 Received by Investigations 02/10/2024

John Smith <[email redacted]>

Complaint No. 2024-03520 messages

Kevin Howard <[email redacted]> Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:38 AM To: "[email redacted]" <[email redacted]>, John Smith <[email redacted]>

Gentleman,

We are currently in conformance to the directive issued by the Judge on the previous complaint No. 2022-07294. Due to the fact that the current complaint includes so many items that are outside the original directives and due to the fact that Mr. Fiske added additional complaints we respectfully request more time to review these complaints and continue our efforts to address them. At this time, we need the May 17th meeting to be rescheduled for at least 30 additional days. I am suggesting Friday, June 21st.

Respectfully,

Kevin B. Howard Principal Architect

Kevin B. Howard Architects, Inc. 8339 N. Oracle Road #110

Oro Valley, Arizona 85704

Phone 520.322.6800 ext. 15

John Smith <[email redacted]> Fri, May 10, 2024 at 11:51 AM To: Wes Ellington <[email redacted]>

John Smith Investigator #194 Arizona Registrar of Contractors 1700 W. Washington St., Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Phone: 520-483-0027

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=78b31fbe7e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted]… 1/2 5/14/24, 8:49 AM State of Arizona Mail - Complaint No. 2024-03520 Received by Investigations 02/10/2024

The ROC is now on social media! Make sure to follow us on:

Fill out AZ ROC’s survey to let us know how we’re doing and how we can better serve you!

[Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=78b31fbe7e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted]… 2/2 5/14/24, 8:50 AM State of Arizona Mail - Complaint 2024-03520

John Smith <[email redacted]>

Complaint 2024-03520 message

Wes Ellington <[email redacted]> Fri, May 10, 2024 at 2:09 PM To: [email redacted] Cc: [email redacted], [email redacted] Bcc: [email redacted]

Mr. Woodlock. Your email to Chief Wills was forwarded to me as I am Inv. John Smith's supervisor. I have read your letter of concern, and will respond to your requests and concerns, as well as the emailed request from the respondent for the inspection to be rescheduled.

First, I see no indication of Inv. Smith not being fair and impartial. I have reviewed the written directive for the last complaint and agree with all decisions made by Inv. Smith. The fact that the administrative law judge agreed with his decisions shows that the written directive was issued as a result of poor workmanship and had nothing to do with the investigator being unfair or partial. Therefore, I will not be replacing Inv. Smith for the new complaint as he is one of our best investigators, is more than competent to address the new issues, and the jobsite is in his assigned area.

The respondent sent an email requesting the inspection be rescheduled. The email stated he is "currently in conformance to the directive issued by the Judge on the previous complaint No. 2022-07294". Judges do not issue directives, that is done by ROC investigators. Complaint 2022-07294 has been adjudicated and resulted in a fine and license suspension to the respondent, so anything on this complaint has no impact on the new complaint or the inspection date. Jobsite inspections are scheduled by the investigator as their schedule permits. My investigators have high caseloads that can range from 50-60 or more at any given time, so rescheduling is an undue burden on the ROC complaint process. Inv. Smith sent the jobsite inspection notice for the current complaint (2024-03520) on 4/12/2024 with an inspection date of 5/17/2024. Five weeks is more than enough notice for the inspection and I see no reason to delay it any further. The Respondent's request for rescheduling is denied and the inspection will be conducted on 5/17/2024 as scheduled.

Thank you.

Wes Ellington #212 Assistant Chief of Investigations AZ Registrar of Contractors 1700 W Washington St. Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 Office: (602) 771-6755

Hours: Mon.- Fri. 8AM-5PM

The ROC is now on social media! Make sure to follow us on:

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=78b31fbe7e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 1/2 5/14/24, 8:50 AM State of Arizona Mail - Complaint 2024-03520

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=78b31fbe7e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:[number redacted]&simpl=msg-f:[number redacted] 2/2 Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Complainant: Bradford White Fiske Respondent: Kevin B Howard Architects Inc An Arizona Corporation

Present for the complainant: Bradford Fiske, Sue Hu Present for the respondent: Kevin Howard, Debbie Howard, Frank Rivera, Michael Woodlock Also present: ROC Investigator Mike Bott Overview of project: This is a new home construction with the Close of Escrow stated to be 5/17/2022 General Notes:

(Complaint Items) Complaint Item 1: “Two year warranty is about to expire,” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

& 23 Complaint Item 2: “although there have been 28 separate leaks, and dozens of surfaces repaired or replaced.” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 20. Roofing: ponding, buckling, drainage pipes adhered to roof preventing drainage, missing sealant. Roof is over 2 years old, normal wear and tear -needs maintenance. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 20. Roofing: ponding, buckling, drainage pipes adhered to roof preventing drainage, missing sealant. Roof is over 2 years old, normal wear and tear -needs maintenance. Please find attached items from the report submitted by Mr. Fiske from his latest inspection regarding unperformed maintenance that homeowners are responsible for. Regular maintenance on the home has not been performed as recommended. • Investigator Notes: o The close of Escrow, and move-in dates, are stated to be 5/17/2022 o This complaint was submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 3/26/2024 o Addendum items were submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 4/25/2024 Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The roof has been repaired and worked on several times since close of escrow. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards: • The reflective coating does not adequately cover the surface. o There are several locations of the underlying color visible through the top coating. • Areas of exposed/unsealed nails through roof edge metal • Roof edge metal installed on top of roofing material, with a poor seal to the roofing material; seams lifting. • Areas of paint (from a sprayer, and from a roller) from other surfaces on the roofing material

RCC100

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes • Areas of roof coating on other surfaces, such as stucco, steel wall panels, window frame(s) • There is no kick-out flashing at the lower end of any side-wall flashings. o There is exposed stucco lath (wire mesh) at the same locations • There is no flashing between the roofing material and the stucco above the garage structure. Note: • The complainant did not have a ladder to access the upper level roof. • Therefore, the upper level roof was not accessed or viewed during this inspection. • The upper level roof is presumed to be in the same condition as all areas viewed during this inspection. Reference Photos: 2-18, 126 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications... Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 3: “Kevin Howard has a history of gross self-serving misrepresentations of his responsibilities and intentions. Ninety percent of the problems addressed were done so only on insistence of the ROC.” Investigator’s Observations: This statement by the complainant does not implicate a workmanship issue, or a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Governing Rule: N/A

(Allegations) Complaint Item 4: “Rust: Exterior stairs, exterior bridge, exterior fascias, under stucco on roof - addressed four times, never fixed” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 1. We were not permitted to perform work because complainant did not want us to “erase the evidence.” Steel was painted over three years ago, needs maintenance. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 1. We were not permitted to perform work because complainant did not want us to “erase the evidence.” Steel was painted over three years ago, needs maintenance. • Investigator Notes: o The close of Escrow, and move-in dates, are stated to be 5/17/2022 o This complaint was submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 3/26/2024 o Addendum items were submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 4/25/2024 o The complainant is not obligated to allow access for corrective work to be performed prior to issuance of a Directive. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There are several areas of rust on exterior painted steel; including but not limited to: • Guard/hand rail components • Stair components • Bridge components

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes • Exterior fascias at balconies and some roofs Reference Photos: 19-27, 139-145 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 5: “Paint on steel: Failure on upper wall panels, bridge structure” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 2. Paint on steel: Failure on upper wall panels, bridge structure. Completed. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 2. Paint on steel: Failure on upper wall panels, bridge structure. Completed. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The steel wall panels were stated to have been recently repainted. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards: • There is visible sprayer lines and spray pattern overlaps, creating an inconsistent sheen • Areas of paint overspray on stucco wall coverings • Areas of paint overspray on roofing material Reference Photos: 28-36 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 6: “Shattered glass paver on exterior bridge” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). The complainant stated the shattered section of glass has been replaced. Governing Rule: N/A

& 24 Complaint Item 7: “Water damaged soffits from leaks outside MBR and below exterior stair landing” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 4. Normal exterior wear and tear and patina. T&G was installed nearly 3 years ago. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 4. Normal exterior wear and tear and patina. T&G was installed nearly 3 years ago. • Investigator Notes: o The close of Escrow, and move-in dates, are stated to be 5/17/2022 o This complaint was submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 3/26/2024 o Addendum items were submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 4/25/2024

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Wood soffit material under balconies, decks, and roof overhangs; several areas of moisture stains/damage, at perimeters and seams. At least one location recently replaced; stain color is not a reasonably close match. Reference Photos: 37-48 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 8: “Glass railing hardware: incorrect hardware or damaged hardware” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 5. Define incorrect (Was acceptable prior.) • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 5. Define incorrect (Was acceptable prior.) Investigator’s Observations: Verified. At least one glass mounting bracket/hardware missing a screw Other glass mounting brackets/hardware are pitted and oxidized Reference Photos: 49-51 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 10A: “Upper level exterior tiles: Poor workmanship, excessive lippage, spalled and missing grout and sealant” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 7. Completed/additional work in process. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 7. Completed/additional work in process. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Lippage within the tiled areas: • The grout joint width is 3/16 inch. • There are numerous locations of lippage that exceed the acceptable tolerance of 1/32 inch. o Including areas with lippage in excess of 1/8 inch. • There are several areas of grout on the surface of the tiles. As per Arizona Workmanship Standards, and as per the Tile Council of North America: tiles set with 3/16 wide grout joints are allowed to have lippage up to 1/32 inch. Additionally, as stated in the Arizona Workmanship Standards: • When an inadequate or defective substrate is present prior to installation of tile, the general contractor and/or the owner should be notified in writing by the tile contractor that a specific surface area is unacceptable for installation. • All unusual characteristics of the tile should be explained the owner or the owner’s agent prior to installation. During the ROC jobsite inspection: • The respondent stated he has already installed this tile twice, and now will be doing it a third time. • The respondent stated he has already replaced many tiles. • The respondent claims the acceptable tolerance for lippage is 4/32 inch. • The respondent stated he was the owner at the time of the tile installation. After the ROC jobsite inspection: • The respondent stated he was the owner at the time of the tile installation. The respondent may have been the owner during the initial installation; however, the respondent was not the owner during subsequent re-installation, and subsequent repairs. Reference Photos: 52-58 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 7. Completed/additional work in process. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Lippage at the transition from the tile to the glass bridge: • At one side of the transition, the glass surface is approximately 3/16 inch higher than the tile surface. • At the other side of the same transition, the glass surface is approximately 9/16 inch lower than the tile surface. The Tile Council of North America allows for elevation change between different floor surfaces. • “Changes in level up to 1/4 inch may be vertical and without edge treatment.” • “Changes in level between 1/4 inch and 1/2 inch shall be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2.” • Changes in level greater than 1/2 inch shall be accomplished by means of a ramp.” • “The maximum slope of a ramp for new construction shall be no greater than 1:12.” Tile edges, and glass bridge edges, are not beveled. Therefore, the maximum allowable change in elevation at this transition is 1/4 inch. Reference Photos: 59-60 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 11: “MBR Shower: Very poor workmanship, sharp uneased edges, unsafe condition” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 8. Craftsmanship was acceptable at time of purchase, some work in progress. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 8. Craftsmanship was acceptable at time of purchase, some work in progress. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Tiled areas of the shower include: • The shower floor • Shower walls • Walls leading up to the shower entrance The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards: • Width of grout joints vary from 1/32 inch, to 1/4 inch. • There are several areas of lippage that exceed the acceptable tolerance of 1/32 inch. • The tiles are not set flat. • There are several tiles with sharp/exposed edges. • Cracked/broken tiles. Reference Photos: 61-77 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry RCC100 11/14

Complaint Item 12: “Damaged weatherstripping at exterior sliding wall” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). • Included in an email from the complainant, dated 5/6/24 at 5:10PM o Since the complaint was filed the following (non-numbered) items have been addressed by the respondent:  9th Issue - Weatherstripping: Weatherstripping has been replaced. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 13: “Missing kitchen base - 22 months later” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 10. Completed/Rejected/In Process. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 10. Completed/Rejected/In Process. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There is a section of toe kick material missing from the kitchen cabinets. Reference Photos: 78 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 14: “Holes in wood ceilings - 22 months later” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 11. Created by shade company-not our subcontractor. Not in contract. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 11. Created by shade company-not our subcontractor. Not in contract. Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Conditions described are present; however, there is insufficient evidence to verify this as the responsibility of the respondent. After close of escrow, the complainant hired a separate contractor to install motorized blinds/shades. It is possible, and likely, the separate contractor is responsible for these holes. Reference Photos: 79-81 Governing Rule: N/A

& 27 Complaint Item 15: “Exterior spa steps, treads and risers, are not code compliant with either IBC or IRC” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 12. Prior complaint, not part of court order. IRC standards on pool, spa, and landscape steps are different than staircases.

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 12. Prior complaint, not part of court order. IRC standards on pool, spa, and landscape steps are different than staircases. • Investigator Notes: o The Office of Administrative Hearings does not issue “Court Orders”. o Prior complaint included:  Interior stairs  Exterior stairs o The prior complaint did not include the steps to the spa. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The flight of stairs to the spa: • Riser heights vary 9/16 inch. • Tread depths vary 1/2 inch. Riser heights should not vary by more than 3/8 inch within any flight of stairs. Tread depths should not vary more than 3/8 inch within any flight of stairs. Reference Photos: 82-87 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 16: “Dirt, Dust: The house environment is compromised by dirt and dust which began after Howard did extensive work in Dec/Jan” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 13. Completed. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 13. Completed. Additional cleanup is ongoing. Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). There is no current evidence to support this allegation. Governing Rule: N/A

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 18: “Spalled exterior tiles by sitting room” • Included in an email from the complainant, dated 5/6/24 at 5:10PM o Since the complaint was filed the following (non-numbered) items have been addressed by the respondent:  15th Issue - Tile: One of two tiles has been replaced. • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 15. Completed/Additional work in process. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 15. Completed/Additional work in process. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. As pointed out by the complainant, there is a damaged/defective tile below the exterior stairs. Reference Photos: 90 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 19: “Damaged plants and construction debris - ongoing” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). • Included in an email from the complainant, dated 5/6/24 at 5:10PM o Since the complaint was filed the following (non-numbered) items have been addressed by the respondent:  16th Issue - Debris: During the inspection there will likely be no evidence. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 20: “Consistent misrepresentation of intent” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). • Included in an email from the complainant, dated 5/6/24 at 5:10PM o Since the complaint was filed the following (non-numbered) items have been addressed by the respondent:  17th Issue - Misrepresentation: Is very probably outside the realm of your involvement. I apologize for listing it. Governing Rule: N/A

Addendum Items, submitted by email dated 4/25/24 at 1:14PM Complaint Item 21: “Interior stair was not rebuilt in accordance with sign-off drawings.”

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 18. N/A -Disputed. Complainant accepted the rebuilt stairs in January 2024 • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 18. N/A -Disputed. Complainant accepted the rebuilt stairs in January 2024 Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). The reconstructed interior stairs do not match the unsigned drawing that was on site. The reconstructed interior stairs do match the signed drawing that was on site. Reference Photos: 91-96 Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 22: “Twelve exterior glass pavers are improperly installed, lack ability to expand, lack sealant,rust” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 19. N/A -Disputed. Was acceptable at time of purchase, complainant has been observed running up and down the glass bridge almost daily stomping, trying to create shifting or failure. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 19. N/A - Disputed. Was acceptable at time of purchase, complainant has been observed running up and down the glass bridge almost daily stomping, trying to create shifting or failure. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Spacing between the glass panels and the steel frame work is uneven and inconsistent. Spacing around the perimeter of the glass panels varies from 0 to 3/8 inch. Most areas are open, some areas are filled with grout, and some areas are filled with a caulking type material. Reference Photos: 97-105 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

& 23 Complaint Item 23: “Roofing: ponding, buckling, drainage pipes adhered to roof preventing drainage, missing sealant” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 20. Roofing: ponding, buckling, drainage pipes adhered to roof preventing drainage, missing sealant. Roof is over 2 years old, normal wear and tear -needs maintenance. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 20. Roofing: ponding, buckling, drainage pipes adhered to roof preventing drainage, missing sealant. Roof is over 2 years old, normal wear and tear -needs maintenance. Please find attached items from the report submitted by Mr. Fiske from his latest inspection regarding unperformed maintenance that homeowners are responsible for. Regular maintenance on the home has not been performed as recommended.

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes • Investigator Notes: o The close of Escrow, and move-in dates, are stated to be 5/17/2022 o This complaint was submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 3/26/2024 o Addendum items were submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 4/25/2024 Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The roof has been repaired and worked on several times since close of escrow. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards: • The reflective coating does not adequately cover the surface. o There are several locations of the underlying color visible through the top coating. • Areas of exposed/unsealed nails through roof edge metal • Roof edge metal installed on top of roofing material, with a poor seal to the roofing material; seams lifting. • Areas of paint (from a sprayer, and from a roller) from other surfaces on the roofing material • Areas of roof coating on other surfaces, such as stucco, steel wall panels, window frame(s) • There is no kick-out flashing at the lower end of any side-wall flashings. o There is exposed stucco lath (wire mesh) at the same locations • There is no flashing between the roofing material and the stucco above the garage structure. Note: • The complainant did not have a ladder to access the upper level roof. • Therefore, the upper level roof was not accessed or viewed during this inspection. • The upper level roof is presumed to be in the same condition as all areas viewed during this inspection. Reference Photos: 2-18, 126 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications... Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

& 24 Complaint Item 24: “Additional areas of soffit with water damage or stains” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 21. Over 2 years old/ normal wear and tear. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 21. Over 2 years old/ normal wear and tear. • Investigator Notes: o The close of Escrow, and move-in dates, are stated to be 5/17/2022 o This complaint was submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 3/26/2024 o Addendum items were submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 4/25/2024 Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Wood soffit material under balconies, decks, and roof overhangs; several areas of moisture stains/damage, at perimeters and seams. At least one location recently replaced; stain color is not a reasonably close match.

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Reference Photos: 37-48 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 25: “Holes in weatherstripping at front door” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). The complainant stated this has been recently corrected. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 26: “Juncture of roof and window above entrance poor constructed, potential leaks” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 23. Not leaking. Normal wear and tear, maintenance issue. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 23. Not leaking. Normal wear and tear, maintenance issue. • Investigator Notes: o The close of Escrow, and move-in dates, are stated to be 5/17/2022 o This complaint was submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 3/26/2024 o Addendum items were submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 4/25/2024 Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant stated additional corrective work was performed within the last few days. Recent corrective work resulted in: • Areas of roof coating on other surfaces, such as stucco, steel wall panels, window frame(s) Reference Photos: 106-109 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

& 27 & 27 Complaint Item 27: “Non code compliant exterior stairs at both 3-step plinths” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 24. Part of the prior complaint rebuilt and approved. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 24. Part of the prior complaint rebuilt and approved. • Investigator Notes: o Prior complaint included:

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes  Interior stairs  Exterior stairs o The prior complaint did not include the steps to the spa. o The prior complaint did not include the east side of the steps leading to the landing below the exterior stairs. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The flight of stairs to the spa: • Riser heights vary 9/16 inch. • Tread depths vary 1/2 inch. Riser heights should not vary by more than 3/8 inch within any flight of stairs. Tread depths should not vary more than 3/8 inch within any flight of stairs. Reference Photos: 82-87 The east side of the flight of stairs leading to the landing below the exterior stairs. • Riser heights vary 3/4 inch. • Tread depths vary 1/2 inch. Riser heights should not vary by more than 3/8 inch within any flight of stairs. Tread depths should not vary more than 3/8 inch within any flight of stairs. Reference Photos: 119-124 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 28: “Exterior wall tiles missing grout, or leaching grout or adhesive” Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). The complainant stated this has been addressed. Governing Rule: N/A

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 30: “Plumbing: tpr pipe in studio improper termination,” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 27. N/A. Accepted and approved by municipality and purchaser at time of purchase. Passed by real estate inspector as part of closing process. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 27. N/A. Accepted and approved by municipality and purchaser at time of purchase. Passed by real estate inspector as part of closing process. Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). The studio water heater is above the ceiling of the bathroom. The pipe from the TPR valve interconnects with the pipe from the secondary drain pan, then continues through framing members and not visible. There is no current indication this is an incorrect installation. Reference Photos: 113-116 Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 31: “missing overflow pans and piping at water heaters” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 27. N/A. Accepted and approved by municipality and purchaser at time of purchase. Passed by real estate inspector as part of closing process. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 27. N/A. Accepted and approved by municipality and purchaser at time of purchase. Passed by real estate inspector as part of closing process. Investigator’s Observations: This allegation is NOT verified as a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A). Water heaters in exterior closets were not viewed during this inspection. Typically, secondary drain pans are not required when a water heater is installed in an exterior utility/mechanical closet. Governing Rule: N/A

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes • In one direction, the unit is 3/8 inch out of level in a two foot span. • In the other direction, the unit is 1/2 inch out of level in a two foot span. Later during this inspection, the respondent stated the HVAC contractor returned and corrected this again. Due to difficult access, this was not re-evaluated again during this inspection. Reference Photos: 117-118 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

& 27 Complaint Item 33: “Exterior stair base non-compliant on east side” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 29. N/A. Previous complaint, not part of court directive. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 29. N/A. Previous complaint, not part of court directive. • Investigator Notes: o The Office of Administrative Hearings does not issue “Court Directives”. o Prior complaint included:  Interior stairs  Exterior stairs o The prior complaint did not include the east side of the steps leading to the landing below the exterior stairs. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The east side of the flight of stairs leading to the landing below the exterior stairs. • Riser heights vary 3/4 inch. • Tread depths vary 1/2 inch. Riser heights should not vary by more than 3/8 inch within any flight of stairs. Tread depths should not vary more than 3/8 inch within any flight of stairs. Reference Photos: 119-124 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 30. Over two years old, normal wear and tear. House was originally stuccoed and roofed almost 3 years ago. Please find attached items from the report submitted by Mr. Fiske from his latest inspection regarding unperformed maintenance that homeowners are responsible for. Regular maintenance on the home has not been performed as recommended. • Investigator Notes: o The close of Escrow, and move-in dates, are stated to be 5/17/2022 o This complaint was submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 3/26/2024 o Addendum items were submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 4/25/2024 Investigator’s Observations: Verified. As a result of recent corrective work: • There are currently no stucco cracks that exceed the acceptable tolerance of 1/16 inch width. • There are areas of stucco paint on roof surfaces and metal wall panels. Reference Photos: 125-128 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 35: “Bare wood under casita base” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 31. N/A • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 31. N/A Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There is, what appears to be, non-removed framing/form material around the foundation. Reference Photos: 129-131 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes The complainant did not have a ladder to access the upper level roof. The respondent confirmed there is no chimney cap installed. Based on a review of the plans, a chimney cap is not required. Governing Rule: N/A

Complaint Item 37: “Poor overall (and overflow) drainage. Rainwater drained onto horizontal stucco surfaces” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 33. N/A Inspected, approved by municipality and purchaser at time of purchase. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 33. N/A Inspected, approved by municipality and purchaser at time of purchase. Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The roof drain discharge pipes currently discharge: • horizontally, and with no turn-downs to prevent wicking • on to horizontal stucco surfaces o Stucco surfaces are not waterproofed to the same degree as roof covering material. Reference Photos: 132-133 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 38: “Exterior above SGD in BR2 - gaps, poor workmanship” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item: o 34. N/A • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 34. N/A Investigator’s Observations: Verified. As a result of recent corrective work: • There are currently no stucco cracks that exceed the acceptable tolerance of 1/16 inch width. There is an unfinished/unsealed void between the patio door frame and the wood soffit material. Reference Photos: 134-138 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

Complaint Item 39: “Exterior fascias at balconies and some roofs: Poor workmanship, failing paint, rust” • Respondent’s 5/15/24 response to this complaint item:

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes o 35. N/A. Over two years old, normal wear and tear. Facias were painted 3 years ago. • Respondent’s 5/16/24 response to this complaint item: o 35. N/A. Over two years old, normal wear and tear. Facias were painted 3 years ago. • Investigator Notes: o The close of Escrow, and move-in dates, are stated to be 5/17/2022 o This complaint was submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 3/26/2024 o Addendum items were submitted to the Registrar of Contractors 4/25/2024 Investigator’s Observations: Verified. There are several areas of rust on exterior painted steel; including but not limited to: • Exterior fascia at balconies and some roofs Edge metals are bent, wavy, and have uneven reveals. Reference Photos: 139-147 Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner. Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) – R4-9-108(b): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

General Notes: • During the administrative hearing for complaint 2022-07294: • 11/9/23 Hearing: Respondent’s attorney stated the upper terrace which caused leaking into the master bedroom has been completely rebuilt (40:35)

Complaint Item 9: “Extended warranty: Twenty refused requests for itemization. Ignored OAH judged who told Howard to supply during hearing” • During the administrative hearing for complaint 2022-07294: o (Starting at 41:20 of 1st recording) (paraphrased) 11/9/23 hearing, the respondent’s attorney, complaint 2022-07294, verbally advised the judge that he would provide an itemized list of what work was performed on what dates. o (Starting at 21:00 of 3rd recording) Respondent’s attorney questioning Frank Rivera: Itemized list would be difficult, but can be provided

Complaint Item 10: “Upper level exterior tiles: Poor workmanship, excessive lippage, spalled and missing grout and sealant” “We replaced many of these tiles already” 1:16:49 Claiming 4/32 is acceptable (4/32 is equal to 1/8) “I’ll be doing this a third time, I’ve done this twice” 1:19:08

Complaint Item 36: “No chimney caps” o Plans page A 2.1 o No indication of a chimney cap

General Notes:

RCC100 11/14

Arizona Registrar of Contractors Jobsite Inspection Notes In response to information submitted by the respondent 5/21/2024, after the JSI: Pages 6-15 of the pdf document: • have no header or footer to identify the source Page 8 of the pdf document • Has a hand written note claiming this document is from the 2012 IRC. o Investigator Note:  This document is not from the 2012 International Residential Code.

RCC100 11/14

Jobsite Inspection Photos 1 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 2 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 3 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 4 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

The roof has been repaired and worked on several time since close of escrow. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards: • The reflective coating does not adequately cover the surface. o There are several locations of the underlying color visible through the top coating. • Areas of exposed/unsealed nails through roof edge metal • Roof edge metal installed on top of roofing material, with a poor seal to the roofing material; seams lifting.

Jobsite Inspection Photos 5 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 6 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

The roof has been repaired and worked on several time since close of escrow. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards: • Areas of paint (from a sprayer, and from a roller) from other surfaces on the roofing material

Jobsite Inspection Photos 7 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 8 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 9 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 10 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

The roof has been repaired and worked on several time since close of escrow. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards: • Areas of roof coating on other surfaces, such as stucco, steel wall panels, window frame(s)

Jobsite Inspection Photos 11 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 12 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 13 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

The roof has been repaired and worked on several time since close of escrow. The following observed conditions do not meet workmanship standards: • There is no kick-out flashing at the lower end of any side-wall flashings. o There is exposed stucco lath (wire mesh) at the same locations

Jobsite Inspection Photos 14 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 15 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 16 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 17 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 18 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755

Jobsite Inspection Photos 19 Complaint No.: 2024-03520 Investigator: John Smith #194 Inspection Date: 5/17/2024 Inspection Time: 9:30AM Jobsite address: 14555 N. Blazing Canyon Dr., Oro Valley, AZ 85755